Vera Vratuša(-Žunjić)
FACULTY OF
PHILOSOPHY
2004Bb "Sociological Systems
Theory in The Service Of Innovaltion Or Conservation?", Rebernik, M.,
Mulej, M., Krošlin, T., eds., STIQE
2004 Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Linking
Systems Thinking, Innovation, Quality, Entrepreneurship and Environment.
Maribor, Slovenia, June 23 - 26, 2004, Institute for Entrepreneurship and
Small Business Management at Faculty of Economics and Business, University of
Maribor; and Slovenian Society for Systems Research, ISBN: 961-6354-41-8, 135
– 144,
http://www.veravratusa.org/biblio.html
135
SOCIOLOGICAL SYSTEM
THEORY IN THE SERVICE OF
INNOVATION OR
CONSERVATION OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS?
Dr. Vera Vratuša
(-Žunjić)
Faculty of Philosophy
Čika Ljubina 18-20,
11000
Fax: + 38111 - 3281-154
e-mail:
vvratusa@dekart.f.bg.ac.yu
http://www.veravratusa.org/
Abstract
Paper analyses the
emergence of predominantly static
and predominantly
dynamic versions of the system
theory since the XIX
century scientific translation of
the classical
philosophical debate between Parmenid
and Heraclit. The aim of
this historical comparison is to
test the hypothesis that
overridingly conservation or
innovation oriented
variants of the system theory
represent ideological
expressions of the socially
structured opposed
interests of their authors.
Keywords: system theory,
interest, innovation,
conservation, division
of labor
1 Theoretic &
Methodological Framework
1.1 The Etymology and
Historical Genesis of
Contending System
Conceptualizations
The term system stems
from the Greek word συστημα
meaning reunion of
either more objects or different
parts within one entity
(Bailly, 1950). Classic Greek
philosophers contributed
the most to the modern
definition of system
even though they did not use this
word, by pointing out
that the whole is more than the
sum of parts, and that parts
are more than a fraction of
the whole. These
“surpluses” are synergic or
conflicting
interdependence relations and/or interaction
patterns of elements of
the whole, so that each
occurrence or change in
any element of the totality
influences the rest.
In classical Greek
philosophy, common inspiration of
modern scientific
approaches to study of society
understood as a system,
one can identify the archetypes
of the main contemporary
variants of system theory.
Parmenide’s theorizing can be
taken as a symbol of the
static immobility of
unchangeable and eternal unity of
existence identical to
itself. According to the numinous
Way of Truth, things as
objects of thought and
knowledge exist and must
exist from ever and forever
in time, single,
indivisible and undifferentiated in
space. It is unthinkable
that objects of thinking do not
exist or that they
contain less of existence than others
do. It is therefore
erroneous Way of Seeming of mortals
in phenomenal physical
world to believe that things
sometimes exist and
sometimes do not (that there is
motion), or that some
things contain some nonexistence
(that there is
difference in forms or degrees of reality)
(Reinhardt, K. 1985;
Owen, G. 1960). Montesquieu
(1748/1757) may be
considered enlightenment period
mediator of Parmenid's
static system thinking, inciting
XIX century social
scientists to focus synchronic
comparative analysis of
the system of social
institutions,
explanation of their coexisting coherence,
reciprocal implication
and reproduction of relatively
stable structure of
their relationships. In contrast to
Parmenid, however,
Montesquieu did not deny the
existence of change,
discovering important source of
transformation in
development of international
commerce. Later
partisans of the homeostatic system
conceptualization, point
out that the main attributes,
structure and form of a
given system tend to remain
identical. This is so
thanks to perpetual activity of selfmaintenance of the equilibrated
order of system’s
interdependent elements
and of the border between this
system and its
environment.
Heraclite’s theorizing on the
contrary can be evoked as
a symbol of perpetual dynamic
flux, constant
confrontation of
difference, proportionally measured
mutual succession of one
state of eternal uncreated and
temporally continuous
unitary world order into the
alternate state. The
fire “steers all things” to engage in
perpetual strife
simultaneously converging and
diverging unity of
opposites (Reinhardt, 1985; Kirk,
1954). Condorcet (1794/1966)
may be considered the
enlightenment-period
mediator of Heraclite's dynamic
system thinking,
inciting XIX century social scientists
to focus diachronic analysis
of the progress of the
system of social
institutions. Later partisans of the
radical dialectical system conceptualization,
point out
that changes in the
characteristics of a given system are
caused by internal
contradictory unity and struggle of
opposites, through the
mechanism of mutual
transformation of
quantitative and qualitative changes
in the direction of
permanent negation of negation.
System signifies both real,
objectively existent totality,
and ideal, subjectively constructed
set of mutually
connected,
interdependent and/or interacting factual or
spiritual parts. They
are gathered, structured and
organized through an
active objective and/or subjective
136
energetic
transformational potential of differentiation
and integration into a
complex whole, separated by the
border from the
environment or integrated within
system of systems.
Starting from the chosen particular
characteristic of the
given system as the classification
criterion, different
types of physical, biological, social
and psychological
systems can be identified.
One of the most frequent
typologies of systems is their
division into “closed”
and “open” ones. An example of
a closed social
system having no demographic or
economic exchanges with
its social environment would
be an almost extinct
tribal community engaged in selfsufficient economy with no immigration and no
emigration. More
numerous are »opened« social
systems like the
population of a nation state affected by
migratory phenomena and
engaged in cash economy.
These exchanges have
different aftereffects on the
system structure and
environmental conditions.
It must be emphasized at
this point that distinction
between system and
environment most often does not
present the substantive
difference, but the distinction of
convention. The level of analysis
or the observer’s
selective model
determine more often what is system
and what is environment
in a particular case than actual
topography. It is
important to call into question very
often practiced division
between human social systems
and their natural
environment, implying asymmetrical
power relations of
domination. It should be
remembered that people
are part of nature, one
complex non-linear
dialectical system.
Since the beginnings of
the study of societies, and not
just since the
beginnings of sociology, there is a
tendency to conceive
social systems by using analogies
derived from mathematics
(set of n interdependent
equations with n unknown
variables), physics (boiler,
radiator, thermostat
regulation set), biology (antientropy
organism homeostasis).
The use of such didactic tools for clarification of the notion of system tends
to over-emphasize the state of balance and the capability of the system to
maintain or restore stability through adaptation to fluctuating conditions of
internal and external environment. The use of such naturalistic comparisons
is also responsible for designation of social system that appears to be
unbalanced, as being in a developing or growing state. There is a limit to
analogies and associated
reductionism between systems
belonging to Earth’s
geo-, bio- and noö- (human mind)
sphere (Vernadsky, 1945).
1.2 The Etymology and
Historical Genesis of
Contending Innovation
Conceptualizations
Term innovation stems
from Latin word innovatio
meaning renovation
(Gaffiot, 1934), suggesting the
restoration of something that
already existed. In
intensively changing
historic, social and cultural
context of late middle
ages, enlightenment
philosophers gave to
this term the connotation of
complete novelty. During
the epistemological fight
with theologians they
began to use the term innovation
in the meaning of
substitution of the old scholastic
deductive method of the
revealed religious truth’s
elaboration, by the new
empiricist inductive method of
discovering scientific
truth (Bacon, 1620/1964). French
Encyclopedists
enlightenment philosophers used the
term innovation mostly
within the realm of politics in
the sense of inducement
to conscious introduction of
innovative reforms of conduct in direction
of social
problems’ solving. They
underlined that novelties are
being realized even
against the will of some people as
the result of Time,
understood as “the greatest
innovator”. They
underlined however that the most
honorable and
self-gratifying are useful inventions by
people having natural
instinct for mechanics that are
applied in improving the
well-being of entire human
species. Such innovations
present the common good of
humanity, while
political innovations are always
accompanied by sorrow,
tears and blood (Diderot,
d’Alembert, 1773)
During the industrial
revolution, innovation began to
be identified with
bringing into being of technical &
technological inventions
of new
materials, tools,
products, markets and/or
organization of production,
insuring material
progress and pecuniary rewards. The
neo-classical economists
like
Schumpeter emphasize
the most the aspect of instrumental
rationality of the
“creative destruction”.
They quantitatively measure the
usefulness of the new combination
of production
factors in terms of the
increase in individual
competitiveness of economic actors on
the pluralistic
markets in specific phases of
constant economic cycles
(Schumpeter, 1942/1950).
Marxist critics of political
economy emphasize more the qualitative
aspect of
substantive normative
rationality reproaching both
individual and
collective enslaving impact of the class
division of labor. The
main social content of innovation
they define as production
relations’ transformation
overcoming the
alienating separation of commanding
and executing labor
functions and enabling all human
beings to realize their
latent potential of conscious, free
and creative praxis of
participation in strategic
decision-making and
managing their own lives.
1.3 The main hypothesis
What are the main social
reasons for the existence of
the above-described
contrary models of system and
innovation’s
conceptualization? The aim of this paper
is to check the
hypothesis that these reasons are
opposed social
interests of broad social groups and
their ideological
representatives to conserve, reform or
radically transform their place in social
division of
labor and in dominant
life reproduction relationships.
Precisely the reality of
existence of these differing
social interests within
all class divided societies,
137
condition reality of
three main types of possible
relationships of social
scientists toward the world they
examine. These relationships
find their expression in
the so-called paradigms
or discourses containing
explicit or implicit
determination of the purpose
respective scientists
ascribe to their social scientific
praxis: conservative,
reformist or radical (Vratuša (Ž),
1995).
1.4 Method
The method of historical
and social comparative
context analysis and symptoms reading will
be applied
to the overt and covert
messages of authors transmitting
opposed system theory
conceptualizations. Manifest
statements of these wielders
of expert power on the
aims of their respective
versions of the system theory
will be confronted with
latent functions of their related
policy recommendations
to the wielders of economic
and political power or
to disowned classes. Special
attention will be
ascribed to the exploration of the
impact of the cyclical
succession of relatively stable
and crisis-ridden phases
in real reproduction of the
dominant social
relations, on the changing popularity
of the conservative and
innovation oriented system
theory conceptualizations.
In the integral version
of this paper considerable place
is allotted to such social
and historical context analysis
of the emergence and
changes in the contesting social
system
conceptualizations and instrumentalizations in
the classic theory and
practice of Comte, Spencer and
Marx. They are
influencing their numerous followers
and critics to our days.
For lack of space, in this shorter
version of the paper
will be presented the analysis
findings just for two
the most representative authors for
the actual period in the
elaboration and application of
antagonistic system
theory conceptualizations.
2 Contending
Conceptualizations of the System
Theory since late 1960's
2.1.Conservation
Oriented System Theory - Neofunctionalism
The late 1960’s are
characterized by the new wave of
anti-colonial,
revolutionary and national social
movements in countries of the so
called
well as by sharpening
economic crisis of capital
accumulation in both the
so called First and Second
Worlds. By this time the
economic growth stimulating
impact of the World War
II destruction of the »surplus«
capital and people were
exhausted while rising
unemployment and prices
returned (Vratuša (Ž), 1993).
These real life
reproduction processes exerted pressure
particularly on the
functionalism-oriented social
scientists to move
the accent in their social system
analysis from synchronic
themes of consensus attained
through socialization
into common values, to
diachronic themes of conflict and
dynamics.
Group of authors, known
as neofunctionalists,
renovated functionalist
social systems theory. Niklas
Luhman (1927-1998) thus
contributed to its
dynamization by
redefining the unit of the system's
operation and
observation. Talcot Parsons considered
that this unit was
actors' actions or their
institutionalized
aggregates (1937). Such analytical
choice of perspective
accompanied by preference for
classifications and
comparative typologies resulted in
predominantly static and
realistic universalistic
conceptualization of
social systems as analytical
models of empirically
objectively existing organized
aggregates of related
actions, produced by their
external observers.
Notions of second order cybernetics
(Foerster, von, 1981)
and autopoiesis (Maturana, 1988)
influenced Luhman’s
redefinition of the unit of
operation of social
system and consequently the unit of
social structure
analysis. This unit according to
Luhman should be the communication
or interaction of
cognitive actions of meaning selection and
construction
of boundaries between
the system and its environment
(Luhmann, 1984).
Advocating such dynamized
functionalist and phenomenological
relativist
epistemological
perspective, Luhman distinguishes two
levels of system's
appearance. System first emerges in
the form of a cognitive
model of representations of
complex social reality
constructed by external
observers. These
cognitive models are the result of
observers' operation of
the code selection and
application in the
complexity reduction of the observed
social system
environment. So subjectively constructed
observation systems or
description perspectives,
observers project on the
observed phenomena in reality.
On the second level,
system emerges as the selfreflexive
re-entry of the observer
into the observed
object. This is the mirroring
process where observers
are observing observers'
observations as elements of
the observed object. Autopoiesis
is the self-referential
interactive cognitive
operation cycle of the observation
systems'
self-differentiation and self-organization into
autological
operationally closed but functionally
interdependent
sub-systems within the unity of the
same social system. Each
sub-system generates a
specific symbolic media
binary code. This allows to
speed up the
differentiated communication by reducing
complexity of the
environment through specifying
selectively which
communication dimension belongs to
given sub-system and
which element of the world
should be attributed to
its environment. For example,
decision about
attribution of communication’s meaning
is done in terms of
truth - untruth in science subsystem,
of power - no power in
self-legitimating
political sub-system, or
money payment – non-payment
of the value on the
market) (Luhmann, 1982). Network
of observation systems
is thus recognized as the only
accessible, constructed
cognitive reality of social
system. In as much as
observers communicate their
observation systems
within society, initiating thus
138
communication networks
of observation systems selfconstruction,
self-observing observers
simultaneously
construct social reality
on the
inside, and the boundary
toward psychological and
other »ecological«
environmental
conditions, on the outside.
Luhmann isolates human
individuals and leaves them
outside the domain of social
system. He makes their
consciousness the
subject of psychology, just as the
human body is made the
subject of biology (Luhmann,
1986). Luhmann defines
human beings’ bodies and
minds as »external
referent«, necessary for
reproduction of
consciousness that is only able to
initialize communication
and with it the emergence and
evolution of mental
social system order. Both the inner
and the outer »real«
world are internally constructed
systemic reality through
communications of
observation systems.
Luhmann moves the focus of
autopoietic systems from
organic to mental level, since
the sensible meaning of
social systems statuses are
constructed only through
communication understood as
the evolutionary
operator of the social system
(Luhmann, 1992).
Luhmann like other neo-functionalists
points out that
social systems are not
perfectly integrated and
coherent, as it
sometimes seamed to be implied by
Parsons. Existing
tensions among different parts of a
social system generate conflict,
driving force in a
process of structural
differentiation and therefore
structural change.
However, Luhman and other neofunctionalists agree with the assessment of the
first
generation of
functionalist sociologists oriented on the
etatistic social reforms
like August Comte (1830-
42/1968-71), or
conservation of individualistic
economic liberalism like
Herbert Spencer (1876-
1896/1971), that only
early forms of pre-modern and
pre-industrial society
organized around core institutions
of kinship and religion,
were stratified, hierarchically
differentiated and
militaristic. Over time from these
core institutions
distinct and specialized spheres of
action split off through
differentiation of economic,
political, legal,
scientific, educational and other subsystems.
Modern societies, since
the 17th and 18th
century increased
commercialization and market
orientation, are
according to Luhmann and other
functionalist
theoreticians, just horizontally
differentiated and
functionally interdependent.
Luhmann nevertheless
admits that the emerging
complex network of
sub-systems that maintain intricate
and changing links with
each other within
communication networks,
may come to operate
according to competing
particular meaning selection
mechanisms. This results in incompatible
function
systems evolution where for
instance science does not
add knowledge to power,
but just uncertainty to
decisions to profitably
use high-risk technologies.
In disagreement with
Comte (1851–54/1953) and in
agreement with Spencer
(1884/1981), Luhmann
rejected all
collectivist implications of government led
social policy,
emphasizing that modern society has no
center and no head that could coordinate
the operations
of the different
subsystems. Within self-perpetuating
self-organization of
self-referential observation
systems, no part of the
system can control others
without itself being
subject to control (Luhmann,
1984). Every attempt to
reestablish the totality of the
system within the system
contradicts the principle of
social differentiation
and would merely create the
difference of that part,
which represents the totality of
the system within the
system vis-ŕ-vis all the other
parts. Luhmann, like
other post-modernists, abandoned
the classic philosophy
question of how a knowing
subject can have
»truth's criterion« of objective
knowledge of reality and
a dream of seeing the world
as a whole from a
god-like or Kantian transcendental
meta-level of objective
(neutral, total) perspective.
Luhmann focuses instead
on the question how is a selforganized world complexity possible and on
providing
the theoretical
instruments for situated and interested
observations from within
science social sub-system of
the operations of a
variety of self-referential social subsystems. (1984).
In spite of considerable
dynamization of functionalism,
Luhmann did not succeed
to avoid the main pitfall of
its partisans – implicit
and sometimes explicit
preference for observations system perspective
of
dominant classes whose very existence the
functionalist-oriented
researchers tend to negate. His
conceptual general system
theory framework has
symptomatic tendency to
reorient potential researcher's
attention from
explanation and interpretation of
hierarchically organized
global system of regional
societies towards the
theme of one allegedly
horizontally
interdependent and autopoietic system of
one world society. Luhmann’s bias is
visible the most
in his claim that huge
masses of starving people
deprived of all
necessities for a decent human life are
neither exploited nor
suppressed since “there is nothing
to exploit in the
favelas”. Favela inhabitants are
according to Luhmann
just neglected environments
excluded from out-differentiated,
operationally closed
social function systems
because they do not meet their
requirements. They are
just not usable resource.
Implicitly, they are
useless byproduct of selective
operations of modern
society. Luhmann also negates
that there exist at the
higher levels of a world society
dominant groups that use
their power to exploit and
suppress other people.
There are according to Luhmann
only groups that like
everyone else use their
“networks” to their own
advantage.
He enthusiastically
speaks of contemporary
economic system that
marginalizes physical
production and trade in favor of
financial markets and
shifts its basis of security from
139
property and reliable
debtors (such as states or large
corporations) to speculation
itself through derivative
instruments. Luhmann
thus chose to ignore the
systemic interdependence
between the growing
financial speculation
and the financing of imperialistic
wars by issuing paper
money and its derivatives
without the golden or
any other real backing ever since
1975. Luhmann even goes
so far as to claim that human
individuals are easy to
replace and they live in great
numbers, so that greater
problem is presented by the
rest of environmental
conditions of social systems like
fresh air, fresh water,
oil, nourishment, pollution, ozone
layer depletion.
(Luhmann, 1997). Luhmann only
abstained from two
things. He did not openly support
mass killing of
“superfluous” people all over the world
if they happen to live
in geo-strategically-important
regions rich with scarce
resources. He also did not try
to explain the role of
the "superfluous" people in
pushing the average pay
levels down and profit rates
up.
Everything existing
according to Luhmann in principle
could be different, but
in accordance with his
endorsement of the conservationist
perspective he
maintains that there is
not much that could make a
difference. By evicting
people out from society into
environment, Luhmann
made it difficult even to
conceptualize innovative
intervention of people in
society. Luhmann
explicitly abandoned emancipation
hopes (according to him
utopian) in the realization of
the normative principles
of freedom, equality and
fraternity. He also urges
everybody else to abandon
them: ” We have to
come to terms, once and for all,
with a society without
human happiness and, of course,
without taste, without
solidarity, without similarity of
living conditions.”
(Luhmann, 1997) Luhmann
supports the actually
dominant “inclusion-exclusion”
relationships within the
hyper-complex one-world
society system as
inevitable, applying the only
adequate anti-humanistic
theoretical and practical
stance. Luhmann thus
rallies on the side of the social
groups interested in the
maintenance and justification
of the capitalist status
quo.
Like Bertalanffy before
him (1968/1979), Luhmann
developed unifying
general system theory metalanguage
terminology in order to be able to
mathematically formalize
the theoretically constructed
abstract models of isomorphic
characteristics, functions
and laws of behavior of
any real or conceptual, natural
or artificial system at
different levels of complexity.
They both thus promoted interdisciplinarity
and the
transference between natural and
social sciences. It can
be reproached to both
Bertalanffy and Luhmann that by
insisting on the
isomorphism between the structure and
functioning of
biological, physical and psychical
systems, they
insufficiently pointed out their
unreducible difference. Habermas
underlined the
difference between autopoiesis
or self-making of
biological systems and self-organization
or emergence
of consensual normative
order in the idealized
conditions of a
discursive practice of rational
justification of universal
validity claims in the life
world (Habermas, 1981).
Habermas energetically
combated Luhmann’s
technocratic “methodological
anti-humanism” in the
name of a universal
emancipatory social
theory (Habermas, Luhmann,
1971). This did not
prevent him from legitimizing an
illegal (Atkinson, 2000)
depleted uranium enriched
bombing of one sovereign
country’s entire population
by NATO technotronic
military machine, presenting it
as a humanitarian
intervention of the whole
“international
community” against “bestiality”
(Habermas, 1999).
Habermas thus supported the
emergence of one-world
society, in fact oligopolistic
and potentially
totalitarian global Empire of
transnational financial
and corporate capital (Vratuša
(Ž), 2002), deceivingly
claiming the high moral ground
of a critical theory
(Vratuša (Ž), 2000).
2.2 Reforming and
Transforming Innovation
Oriented System Theory –
Neo-dialectics
In the circumstances of
sharpening multidimensional
crisis that at the end
of sixties began to manifest itself
in both the West and the
East as stagnation of economic
growth accompanied by
inflation, appeared the signs of
converging trends in the dominant
social system
theorizing as well. A
tendency toward functionalistic
»systematization«
of dogmatized historical and
dialectical materialism
in the East (Gouldner, 1971),
was accompanied with the
»dialecticization« of the
neo-functionalist
general system theory in the West.
Illustrative for this
trend was the publication of the
compendium of texts
inspired by Ludwig Von
Bertalanffy’s General
system theory (1968/1979). It
included among others
the contribution of Alfred
Locker (1973) who
cautiously attempted to merge neofunctionalism and dialectics claiming that
functionality
leads to unification,
i.e. an identity of identity and
difference. Proponents
of increasingly fashionable
chaos theory rediscovered that
science of complex
dynamical non-linear
systems like organism or society,
in which small change in
the input produces a huge
change in the output,
should study process rather than
state, becoming rather
than being (Gleick, 1987). It is
symptomatic, however,
that chaos theorists seldom
acknowledge that they
are just reformulating
positivistic and
idealistic version of the dialectical
“law” of transformation
of accumulated quantity into
quality. They do not
come to the insight that
contradictorily
interconnected and from time to time
discontinuously changing
reality can be adequately
theoretically
reconstructed only if "historicized"
materialist version of
the dialectical logic and
methodology are
implemented, envisaging the
unification of
affirmation and its negation in the real
process of the
dialectical overcoming. Radically critical
140
part of
neo-dialecticians criticize the neo-functionalist
interpretation of
dialectics as a sheer synonym for
interdependence that should be kept in
mind in order to
realize reformist
innovations remaining within the
borders of dominant systemic
structures. They reaffirm
the new materialistic
interpretation of dialectics as the
general law of
development of nature, society and
human knowledge, leaving thus open the
possibility of
fundamental emancipatory
innovation.
Immanuel Wallerstein is a typical XX century
partisan
of a radical
dialecticization of social system theory.
Together with authors
from Latin America,
Mediterranean Europe,
this North American revived in
the 1970's the holistic
notion of the world as a single,
complex, stochastic and
contradictorily interdependent
social, economic and
ecological system of capitalist
world-economy (Gunder-Frank,
1969; Amin, 1970;
Wallerstein, 1979). In
the circumstances of the »world
revolution of 1968« that
created among one part of the
young generation the atmosphere
receptive to protest
against the bipolar
world in the West, East and in the
non-aligned
already abolished the
geographical separation of the
social sciences’ subject
in the period of proclaimed
“post-colonialism”
(Ashcroft, B.,
H., 1998). Sociology
ceased to specialize for the study
of the modern
“civilized” European and North
American societies
operationally defined as nation
states, on the one hand,
and archeology and
ethnography halted to
specialize in the study of
traditional “primitive”
societies, on the other. The
world system analysis
inaugurated a globally applicable
explanatory model that
criticizes the basic premises of
modernization theory.
World system analysis first of all
objected to supposition that
global societies or states
were more or less independent
one from the other,
progressing from a
so-called lower to a so-called
advanced stage of universal
evolutionary progress to
modernity. World system
analysis insists on the
globality of the unit of
analysis.
It substitutes particular
societies/states by the
encompassing and hierarchically
interdependent and contradictory world-system
brought about through
long distance trade and violent
expansion of capitalist production
relations ever since
the protracted XV
century. Even though there is still
debate about the correct
dating of the world system
formation, there is
consensus among world system
analysts that the
capitalist economy exists beyond
boundaries of individual
societies organized within
nation states of unequal
power. World system theory
also affirms the long
duration historicity of the entire
system as opposed to the
contemporary history of parts
taken separately and
comparatively. World system
analysis espouses holistic
trans-disciplinary approach
to study of historically
emergent globalization
processes, instead of
separate analysis of artificially
segregated economic,
political and socio-cultural
domains and their
supposedly particular development
logic by clearly
delineated social sciences. World
System analysis approach
therefore proposes to replace
the concept of
“development” by the concept of
transformation of complex historical
systems going
through global crisis
in a concrete time and space
(Amin, Gunder-Frank, Arrighi, Wallerstein, 1983).
According to
Wallerstein, the world capitalist
economic system is
structured by and cyclically
evolving along with a
single worldwide division of
labor and profits' maximizing accumulation
of capital.
It is hierarchically
structured into dominant and
subordinated
geographically concentrated economic
zones. These zones are
performing distinctive »core«,
»semi-periphery« and
»periphery« functions within the
world system. The core
zone consist of former and
present (neo)-colonial
powers, supplying managerial
and organizational
skills, research and development,
capital, and high tech,
quality and cost finished goods.
They administer as well
military intervention whenever
the control of the rate
of flow of minerals and fossil
fuels from the periphery
is threatened. These activities
of the core region increase
disorder or entropy not only
through environmental
damage, pollution, depletion of
nonrenewable resources,
but also through unjust
income distribution,
crime, and war. The semiperipheral
zone consists of the “newly
industrialized”
and »transitional«
states whose governments are
attempting to acquire
higher place within the world
system through increased
trade, stabilization of
inflation and
unemployment and diminishing political
risk of rebellion. The
level of productivity of capital
accumulation, the level
of wages and of consumption is
the lowest in the peripheral
zone that supplies the low
cost raw materials,
unskilled labor and a dumping
ground for the high
entropy by-products from the core
and a compliant
»compradore« political and social
regimes. The terms of unequal
exchange between three
economic zones are
regulated and controlled by the
core zone and the
internal conflict producing logic of
the world market. In the
political sphere there exists a
fragmented interstate
system consisting
of strong and
weak, more or less
sovereign nation states. Among
them no single state can
control the entire world economy
system, but one of them
is always the hegemonic power in a given period (Wallerstein, 1979, 1989).
Wallerstein claims that
the world capitalist system is
since the end of the XX
century in the declining
»autumn« phase of its existence;
it is heading toward
collapse due to its
internal contradiction - profit
motivated distribution
inequality, resulting in political
illegitimacy and
geo-cultural and ecological
contradictions tearing
it apart. After »winter frost«,
some fifty years long
transitional structural systemic
141
crisis, a new historical
system will emerge
(Wallerstein, 1995).
Wallerstain is aware like Marx and
Engels were, both in the
revolutionary 1848
circumstances and in the
subsequent conditions of
capitalist accumulation
stabilization (1956-71a; 1956-
71b; 1956-71c) that
dialectics of human history
depends both on
inherited objective conditions and
innovative organized
action of subjective forces.
Wallerstein therefore
examines broad trends of possible
future outcome of this crisis,
emphasizing diversity and
unpredictable character of involved
dynamic social
processes. He estimates
that socialist revolutions as
models of liberation are
rejected in many parts of the
»periphery«.. Other
forms of refusal to play along the
rules of the world
capitalist system, including illegal
immigration to its
»core«, threaten its equilibrium and
even physical existence
in the case of military conflict.
It is clear that
personally Wallerstein would prefer
world socialism outcome
of the world capitalist system
bifurcation and
transformation crisis. In contrast to
utopianism, Wallerstein
proposes his »utopistics« of
democratic
non-authoritarian world system of true
equality that abolishes
the core-periphery geography.
He bases this proposal
on the exercise of sober
judgment as to the substantive
rationality of alternative
historical systems, objective
constraints on what they
can be, and the zone
open to human subjective
creativity (Wallerstein, 1998).
World socialist system
would sustain earth's
finite high quality and low
entropy human, solar and
terrestrial energy resources
that can not be
substituted by capital through
technology, stimulating
their creatively innovative
recycling, securing
diversity and social justice for all.
Neo-feudalism and supranational
democratic fascist
outcome would both
prolong the world capitalist profit
logic for the benefit of
just the top twenty percent of
the world population
exploiting a »totally disarmed
proletariat«. These
outcomes would increase entropy,
deteriorate the
well-being of the 80% majority and
endanger the future of
the planet (Wallerstein, 1995,
1998).
Wallerstein rightfully
warns that the strength of the
world system analysis
led to appropriation of its
terminology by the
partisans of the neo-functionalist
concepts of
»globalization«, »social science history«,
»multidisciplinarity«
and »general education«. Such
absorption of the critical world
system analysis by the
renovated positivistic
theory of modernization,
announces that world
system analysis ceases to be a
radical theoretical tool
of alter-systemic analysis.
World system analysis
therefore finds itself also in a
situation of bifurcation.
Its partisans have to move on
from powerful
intellectual movement criticizing other
perspectives to building
new theoretical consensual
mainstream premise, in
order to avoid pseudo-cooptation
and demise through
forgetting of the original
critical stance toward the entire
thought-system of the
capitalist world
economy. Wallerstein proposes to
critically thinking
academics to »unthink« the
historically constructed
and restraining divide between
not only particular
social sciences, but also between
natural and social
sciences' quest for truth and the
humanities' emancipatory
quest for good and justice
(Wallerstein, 1991). It
is less clear who are at present
the concrete addressees
of Wallerstein's call to critical
world system thinking
outside the academic
community.
3 Conclusion
In this paper the
evidence is presented that there is a
close relationship
between the ideal system theory
construction and the
real social system interests and
power structure.
Throughout human class history
system theory is being
put to mutually confronted
political and
ideological uses.
One group of system
theorists decides to put their
expert power implicitly or explicitly
in the service of
stabilization and conservation
of existing hierarchical
and heteronomous social
order in the interest of the
ruling elite. Some of them
approvingly assert that
predictable and mechanically
recurring cyclical
variations around the
balance state, are inevitably and
eternally determined by natural
laws according to
which lower and upper
classes have inborn inferior or
superior qualities that
predispose them for subordinated
or dominating roles in
social division of labor. The
other group of
conservation oriented system
theoreticians attempt to
dynamise and embellish the
actual order of glaring
vertical inequality by claiming
that it is increasingly
being transformed into the
stochastic order of horizontal
functional
interdependence and
creative cooperation.. Both
versions of hierarchical
status quo conservation have in
common the emphasize on
the importance of the
exogenous so called »negative
feedback« responses of
the environment on the
human social system’s selfdifferentiating adaptations to environmental changes.
These responses control
and diminish changes in the
system status and
stabilize its structure around
equilibrium (i.e. the
thesis on the survival of the fittest
in the competitive
circumstances of scarcity).
Conservation oriented
general system theorists
suppress the question of
who actually controls the
asymmetrical system
structures by introducing the neofunctionalist theoretical conceptual framework
of
counter-controls that replace the subject
of interaction
with communication
networks. According to their
social system model,
modern societies allegedly have
no top centers of economic, political
and cultural
power and social reality
evolution control.
Certain dynamization of
the neo-functionalist
conservatively oriented
model is obtained through
introduction of elements
of dialectics like the notion of
guiding difference
within the identity of functionally
142
interdependent processes
of self-reproduction that can
be unpredictably stopped
and/or lead to counterintentional
dysfunction. Predominance of
static characteristics of neo-functionalism is however caused by
ideological tendency of its partisans to oversee the historically specific
character of commodity production and therefore to attribute an objective and universal
character to capitalist form of social reproduction organization.
The full dynamization
potential of dialectics is realized
by as a rule
significantly smaller group of social system
researchers who choose
to dedicate their expert power
to the radical and
comprehensive transformation of the
existing system's core
institutions. They at the least
verbally declare that
they are making this choice in the
universalizable interest
of the actually subordinated
majority excluded from
effective decision-making.
They place in the core
of their social system
conceptualization the
dialectical idea of the endogenous
unity of contradictorily
interdependent processes of the
so called »positive
feedback«. In this model potentially
»explosive« endogenous
processes of increasing
deviations from
homeostatic or dynamic equilibrium
state destabilize
system, leading to a breaking point and
sudden qualitative
self-transformation in the system's
structure and borders
(i.e. thesis on the structural
systemic crisis of the
accumulation of capital). The
main transformation
mechanism is a social praxis of
creative conscious and
intended break with the past
system structure through
invention of the new ways of
institutionalization of
satisfaction of old and newly
created
self-reproduction needs of concerned associated
producers.
The decision to
what use will the system theory be put
depends on both objective
social interests and on
irreducible subjective
will of
the decision-maker.
Presuming that the
choice is made to put the system
theory into the service
of emancipatory innovation, the
findings of this
research suggest that such system
theory should avoid
falling into two traps. The first is
the one-sidedness of the
endogenist deterministic
conceptualization of the
relationship between statics
and dynamics of social
systems, that the entire future
contains within present
system structure. The second is
the opposite
one-sidedness of the exogenist
voluntaristic conceptualization, that
the entire future
leaves open to
contingent unpredictable and
uncontrollable
innovative input or intervening
influence by arbitrarily
chosen element from the
environment over the
system.
The best way to avoid
these two traps is to provide for
two conditions. The
first is to become aware of the real
dialectical logic of social system's
transformation. The
second condition is the
overcoming of pseudo
dialectical modeling of social systems that
in fact uses
undialectical formal
logic insisting on dichtomic
divisions between subject and
object, fact and value,
theory and practice,
social system of relationships and
human and natural
environment. The main source of
the dialectical
complexity of social systems is the
creative innovative
ability of
the actors belonging
simultaneously to
complex social system and its
biological and
psychological environment. Such
attempt to conceptualize
dialectical social systems as
dialectical systems must
therefore overcome both
teleological argumentation where
effects produce
causes and eschatological
argumentation where the
final outcome of
historical evolution of society is
predictable.
REFERENCES
1. Amin, S. (1970),
Accumulation a l’echelle
mondiale. Anthropos,
Paris.
2. Amin, S.,
Gunder-Frank, A., Arrighi, G.,
Wallerstein,
3. Arrighi, G. (1978),
The Geometry of Imperialism.
4. Ashcroft, B.,
Concepts in
Post-Colonial Studies. Routledge,
5. Atkinson, R., (2000),
“The Illegality of NATO’s
War against
6. Bacon, F.
(1620/1964), Novum organum
scientiarum/Novi
organon, Naprijed, Zagreb
7. Bailly, A. (1950),
Dictionnaire Grec – Français.
Librarie Hachette,
Paris.
8. Bertalanffy, L. v.
(1968/1979), General Systems
Theory. Brazillier. New
York.
9. Comte, A.
(1830-42/1968-71), Cours de la
philosophie positive, t. IV,VI. Anthropos, Paris
10. Comte, A.
(1851–54/1953), Systčme de politique
positive, ou traité de
Sociologie Instituant la
Religion de l'Humanité,
I-IV. Carilian – Goeury,
11. Condorcet, A.N. de,
(1794/1966), Esquise d’un
tableau historique des
progrčs de l’esprit humaine.
PUF, Paris.
12. Diderot, D.,
d’Alembert, J., eds.(1773),
Encyclopedie ou
dictionnaire raisonné des
sciences, des arts et
des metiers, t. VIII, Livourne
13. Foerster, H. von
(1981), Observing Systems.
14. Gaffiot, F. (1934),
Dictionnaire illustré Latin –
Français. Librarie
Hachette, Paris.
15. Gleick, J. (1987),
Chaos, Making a New Science.
16. Gouldner, A.W.
(1971), The Coming Crisis of
Western Sociology.
Heinemann,
17. Gunder-Frank, A.
(1969),
Underdevelopment or
Revolution. Monthly
Review Press, NY.
143
18. Habermas, Luhmann
(1971), Theorie der
Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie: Was leistet
die Systemforschung? Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.
19. Habermas, J. (1981), Theorie des kommunikativen
Handelns II – Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen
Vernunft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt /Main.
20. Habermas, J. (1999), “Bestialität und Humanität -
Ein Krieg an der Grenze zwishen Recht und
Moral”, Zeit, no. 18,
24. April
http://www.ZEIT.de/tag/aktuell/199918.krieg_.htm
l
21. Kirk, S. (1954),
Heracklitus, the Cosmic
Fragments.
22. Locker, A. (1973),
»On the Ontological
Foundations of the
Theory of Systems«.. Gray, W.,
Festschrift for Ludwig
von Bertalanffy, I, New
23. Luhmann, N. (1982),
The Differentiation of
Society.
24. Luhmann, N. (1984),
Soziale Systeme. Grundriß
einer allgemeinen Theorie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/
25. Luhmann, Niklas
(1986). ”The autopoiesis of
social systems”. Felix,
G., Zouwen, van der, J.
(eds.), Sociocybernetic
Paradoxes. Sage, London.
26. Luhmann, N. (1992), Die Wissenschaft der
Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/ Main.
27. Luhmann, N. (1997), “Globalization or World
Society: How to Conceive
of Modern Society?”.
Intern. Review of
Sociology, Vol. 7, No. 1.
28. Marx, K., Engels, F. (1956-71a), Manifest der
Kommunistischen Partei. MEW, t. 4, Berlin.
29. Marx, K., (1956-71b), Zur Kritik der Politischen
Ökonomie. MEW, t. 13, Berlin.
30. Marx, K., (1956-71c), Das Kapital, MEW, t.23-5,
31. Maturana, H.R.
(1978), “Biology of Language:
The Epistemology of
Reality”.. Miller, G.A.,
Lenneberg, E. (Eds.),
Psychology and Biology of
Language and Thought.
Essays in Honor of Eric
Lenneberg, Academic
Press,
32.
des loix. Londres,
http:/www.taieb.net/auteurs/Montesquieu/index1.h
tml
33. Owen, G. (1960),
“Eleatic Questions”. Classical
Quarterly, Vol. 10.
34. Parsons, T. (1937)
The Structure of Social Action,
The Free Press,
35. Reinhardt, K. (1985), Parmenides und die
Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie.
Frankfurt/Main.
36. Schumpeter, J.
(1942/1950), Capitalism, Socialism
and Democracy. Harper
& Row , N.Y.
37. Spencer, H. (1971),
Structure, Function and
Evolution. Nelson,
38. Spencer, H.
(1884/1981), The Man versus the
State, with Six Essays
on Government, Society,
and Freedom.
39. Vernadsky, V.I.
(1945), “ The Biosphere and the
Noösphere”. American
Scientist, Vol. 33, No. 1.
40. Vratuša(Ž), V.
(1993), “Rat i razvoj (War and
Development)”.
Sociologija (Sociology), Vol. 35,
No. 4
41. Vratuša(Ž), V.
(1995), “O smeni dominantne
paradigme u društvenim
naukama (On the Shift of
the Dominant Paradigm in
Social Sciences)”.
Sociološki pregled
(Sociological Review), Vol. 29,
No. 3.
42. Vratuša(Ž), V.
(2000), “Transformacija kritičke
teorije u apologiju u
delu Jürgena Habermasa
(Transformation of
Critical Theory into Apology
in the Work of Jürgena
Habermas)”. Sociološki
pregled (Sociological
Review), Vol. 34, No.1-2
43. Vratuša(Ž), V.
(2002), “Globalization of
Democratic participation
and Self -Governance
Versus Globalization of
Oligopolistic Markets and
Totalitarianism”,
http://203.94.129.73/docs/p655.rtf
44. .Wallerstein,
Vol. 2. Academic Press,
NY.
45. Wallerstein,
Vol. 3, Academic Press,
46. Wallerstein,
The Limits of Nineteenth
Century Paradigms.
Polity Press,
47. Wallerstein,
Capitalist Civilization.
Verso Editions,
48. Wallerstein,
of World-Systems
Analysis",
http://fbc.binghamton.edu/iwwsa-r&.htm
49. Wallerstein,
Choices of the
Twenty-first Century. The New
Press,
PROCEEDINGS
of the 7th International
Conference on
Linking Systems
Thinking, Innovation,
Quality,
Entrepreneurship and Environment
Edited by
Miroslav Rebernik
Matjaž Mulej
Tadej Krošlin
CIP – Kataložni zapis o
publikaciji
Univerzitetna knjižnica
007(082):65.018.2
658.56:65.012.4(082)
http://epfip.uni-mb.si/publica/proc/stiqe2004.pdf
STIQE 2004